Forums of the Libertarian Left

[Francois Tremblay]

On this entry of mine:
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2 ... c-ravings/

Digg it:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Walte ... harassment

Spread the word around. I would welcome help about any site where I could get this on.

[Aster]

OMG Francois.

Thank you and Ghertner both. Godlessness bless. You make me remember why I wanted to think of myself as a left-libertarian.

(I think I'm an Arendtian liberal on properly relations at the moment)

[Francois Tremblay]

I have no idea what you're going on about. Please guys, no pedantry, just help the cause.

[neverfox]

Capitalist property theory allows any form of injustice as long as it’s done “on one’s property.” Insofar as property theory entails that sexual harassment, and other such aggression, is validated, it necessarily contradicts justice. In order for you propertarians to refute us, therefore, you can’t just say “sexual harassment is just wrong”: you need to show that property theory does not entail that sexual harassment is validated.

Franc, I notice that in your article you occasionally drop the "capitalist" adjective a say simply "property theory". These makes me wonder: is your ultimate goal here to demonstrate that Block is mistaken somewhere in his argument or that Block's argument is sound and represents the only coherent interpretation of private property theory? If the latter, I wouldn't be so quick to praise you as Aster because that would mean that you aren't just standing up for a feminist cause but using Block's bad argument as cover to avoid showing why we should think Block's theory is the only theory. You logic amounts to:

1. Block is wrong
2. Block represents all property theory.
3. Property theory is wrong.

I don't accept #2 but you seem to want to by the way you obscure exactly what you are against when you deride property. You say "Capitalist property theory allows any form of injustice as long as it’s done “on one’s property.”" but that seems like a question-begging form of the basic intuition about property theory (and not simply because of the 'capitalist' term thrown in when it should say 'Blockian' unless you can show why Block = Capitalist). Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "Property theory allows any form of use of one's property as long as it's not unjust?" After all I can't shoot you with my gun because it's my property. If put this way, rather than your question-begging way, there is no longer a reason to claim that the argument "Unwanted pinching is aggression and unjust" is insufficient to show why "property theory does not entail that sexual harassment is validated".

Further more, if you goal was really to highlight the immorality of sexual harassment, then why would you react in a hostile manner to posts like this? Further reason to think that you are just looking for reasons to object to property in any form; even when people answer your challenge of "show that property theory does not entail that sexual harassment is validated" you choose to ignore it.

[Rorshak (1313)]

I assume you're referring to Hannah Arendt, Aster? I haven't really read any of her works. What would you recommend for her works on property relations?

Edit: Neverfox, you make a great point here. As fucked up as Block's statements are, I think Franc is being somewhat disingenuous. He seems to treat it as some sort of knock down argument against anarcho-capitalism. While I'm not really defending ancaps here, I have a problem with this. I'm sure I could dredge up some fucked up quotes by some mutualists, but it wouldn't be any kind of argument against mutualism. These statements, I think, show a problem with a property theory devoid of a larger moral context. Not with all property theories, even "capitalist" ones.

Yet another edit: Regarding that post on nothirdsolution. Franc, I think you need to calm down a little. It seems like you're simply being a reactionary here.

[Flex]

I assume you're referring to Hannah Arendt, Aster? I haven't really read any of her works. What would you recommend for her works on property relations?

I know this question was directed at Aster, but if I may field it by recommending The Human Condition. Wikipedia blurbs the book about as well as I could:

Arguably her most influential work, The Human Condition (1958) distinguishes between labour, work, and action, and explores the implications of these distinctions. These categories, which attempt to bridge the gap between ontological and sociological structures, are rigidly delineated. Her theory of political action, corresponding to the existence of a public realm, is extensively developed in this work.

I'd say both Origins of Totalitarianism and Eichmann in Jerusalem are also worth picking up if you haven't read them.

[Francois Tremblay]

I really shouldn't have come here expecting any support. What was I thinking?

Stupid pedants of libertarian-left bullshit. There's nothing in this forum for me.

[manbear2pig]

Well, I think that this can't be written off as an aberration. If you look back at Block's infamous flagpole scenario, he actually explicitly states the strategic importance of guaranteeing that property can justify murder -- if it couldn't, then the whole existing global property framework as we know it would come crashing down. And plenty of ancaps have stated that they will kill anybody who doesn't kowtow to the property status quo -- to date the only death threats I have received have been from same. Now I don't think that this illustrates the flaw with all property systems (defined loosely) but the assumptions behind mainline ancap property theory do seem to lead to this scenario (to say the least) pretty inevitably -- to reject this would be to call into question most of what constitutes capitalist property. I wrote a post that attempts a deeper rejection of the assumptions this scenario rests upon.

[neverfox]

I really shouldn't have come here expecting any support. What was I thinking?

Stupid pedants of libertarian-left bullshit. There's nothing in this forum for me.

We should be expected to be uncritical and support an argument that we might find unconvincing just because we share the conclusion that Block is wrong? It doesn't follow that disagreeing with critique that you support the thing critiqued. I simply don't think your approach to Block's insanity is either coherent or convincing and it isn't my responsibility to make it so.

Block's problem is that he rejects the interplay of morality and libertarianism where as there are plenty of pro-property libertarians that think they are inextricably linked. My problem is that you are riding roughshod over the latter group to get where you seem to want to go: complete anti-property, based on Block as the expert and only witness. It would be less of a problem if you didn't continually substitute "property theory" for "capitalist property theory" or "propertarianism" as if the first was the same as the last two.

[neverfox]

The big concern seems to be outrage over the fact that even if we can bring moral sanction on the boss, we can't prevent the secretary from losing her job. But why assume that the private contract system cannot possibly allow for the equivalent of a “wrongful termination” suit? I personally think that it can and would because I think Block overlooks the possibility of another “package deal” that applies to the boss, namely the reasonable assumption that granting a job gives to someone that it's ok to turn down other offers, take financial risk this entails etc. and work for what generally should be assumed as a non-harassing environment.

It's not the job per se we should be concerned about but the sum total loss to the secretary, the amount that she was implicitly risking by accepting what she thought was a job she would want to perform, i.e. one without being asked to sacrifice her flourishing. Preventing her from flourishing (which is what coercing someone to submit to harassment would do) invalidates the contract and thus damage suits would follow. If there is a possible package deal (and I think there is good reason to think there is) in the secretary's favor, then we should be happy with the outcome. She doesn't have the job (why would she want it?) but she could obtain the monetary damages that equal the loss.

What’s really funny about the the-only-alternative-to-Block-is-communism crowd is that you are basically supporting Block’s contention that the secretary has no enforceable claims against the boss if fired for not accepting the harassment. I’m actually saying that she likely does. Maybe I should be questioning your lefty credentials (Franc questioned mine for bringing this up) since you are closer to Block than I am.

[Brainpolice]

*fondles ur wife's boobies on the free market*
MAI OFFICE! :)

*boinks tremblai en ess*
COMMIE COMMIE COMMIE!

[shawnpwilbur]

The problems with this stuff keep snowballing. The definition of "property" in the Francois/Noor "FAQ" is so narrow and absolutist that, even if there weren't huge problems with the arguments raised against it, it's hard to know what would be accomplished. I'm uncertain, and maybe it's "pedantic" of me to even care, if that definition is supposed to include "simple property," as Proudhon critiqued it in 1840 ("right of use and abuse, within the limits of the law") or just the entirely unencumbered form he dealt with in The Theory of Property.

If we could clarify what form of property is being criticized, then we could make better judgments about its logical consequences. All the an-caps and other propertarians who have objected that they consider harassment as aggression and/or violation of self-ownership seem to have a point -- that the position being attacked is not one that they hold. Francois has tried to silence those objections with the claim that property based in self-ownership is simply circular. And that may be true, but the weakness of the construction doesn't change what its adherents actually believe. If someone believes in absolute individual property, as limited by a NAP or ZAP or axiom of self-ownership, then the logical outcome of their beliefs is not going to be Block's argument. You can call them a liar, or claim, perhaps correctly, that their beliefs aren't well-founded or well-reasoned, but you still won't have the argument that Francois wants. The circularity of the relationship between self-ownership and property isn't inevitable anyway.

It doesn't look like the argument-from-Block does much damage to any property theory except the most absolutist, and even then we would have to establish whether the problem is with "property" per se, or with the definition of voluntarity, or with the distribution of property, etc.

The narrowness of the property attacked gives us absolutely no clue what the acceptable alternatives are. On the one hand, Francois and Noor seem to oppose the forms of rent, profit, wages, interest, etc., with none of the "baseline mutualist" [sic] concerns about the actual working of privilege, the possibility of mutual benefit. An-caps and propertarians of various sorts are left with the wide-open option of claiming that the problem is a failure to respect property rights of some less-absolutist form. The claim that only absolutist claims count as "property" rings hollow, given all the forms of property actually being opposed.

And, honestly, this round of things sounds rather like old arguments against communism that it would inevitably lead to "community of women." The seriousness of the issues just makes the sloppiness of the whole affair more of a concern.

[neverfox]

That's the story in a nutshell. Now we just need to figure out who owns the nutshell and whether or not it's legitimate hurl said nutshell at someone's head.

[Brainpolice]

*homesteads aster and noor*
MAI PROPERTAI!

[Rorshak (1313)]

Git offa mah propertay! *boom!*

[Marja]

And, honestly, this round of things sounds rather like old arguments against communism that it would inevitably lead to "community of women." The seriousness of the issues just makes the sloppiness of the whole affair more of a concern.

... as opposed to a community of womyn.

Anyway, I have a number of disagreements with Noor and Francois. I draw on reciprocity as an important value, and regard various property systems as extensions of that reciprocity. Absolutist property violates reciprocity, as does absolutist mutualism. I think that the way competing profit-seekers can respond to supply and demand, and continually, dynamically keep price as close as possible to cost, is an elegant example of the potential of mutualism.

[shawnpwilbur]

And, honestly, this round of things sounds rather like old arguments against communism that it would inevitably lead to "community of women." The seriousness of the issues just makes the sloppiness of the whole affair more of a concern.

... as opposed to a community of womyn.

As quite clearly opposed to that, I think...

Anyway, I have a number of disagreements with Noor and Francois. I draw on reciprocity as an important value, and regard various property systems as extensions of that reciprocity. Absolutist property violates reciprocity, as does absolutist mutualism. I think that the way competing profit-seekers can respond to supply and demand, and continually, dynamically keep price as close as possible to cost, is an elegant example of the potential of mutualism.

One of the lessons of Proudhon's development is that there are lots of degrees of reciprocity, and lots of ways for our individual absolutist tendencies to not only find equilibrium, but lift us all. I think "absolutist mutualism" is either a sort of misnomer, or it describes a very low-level sort of balance, where individual absolutism finds its expression primarily in force: a world, perhaps, where secretaries can indeed all walk out, and nobody bothers to behave themselves, because everyone thinks of their profit in atomistic terms.

My chief frustration is that that world is not the only one envisioned by propertarians. Setting aside people like me who think property theory can be set back on its feet and notions like self-ownership clarified to do very different work -- there are lots of propertarians, even "capitalists," who have strong commitments to fair play as they understand it. And I suspect they would come to understand it in more mutualistic ways if given a chance to work within a freed market. I've lost pretty much all of my faith in "markets" per se, but I have some in those people committed to seeing some sort of equitable commerce emerge from the messy business of working, getting and spending, etc. The broad-brush stuff doesn't do any serious critical work, but it does create barriers to bringing together those folks who are really committed to a free society.

[wombatron]

I can't get behind this. Block is wrong on the absoluteness of property rights, yes, but that doesn't justify the general bashing of an-caps. An-caps who subscribe to the inalienability of one's rights to life, liberty, etc., for example, would and do disagree with Block on the idea that one has the right to violate those on their property. We should be engaging an-caps on issues that actually matter, not taking the views of one thinker out of context and applying them to all members of a group.

[Brainpolice]

I see a double-edged sword in all of this. On one hand, yes - Franc comes off as overzealous, to the point of attacking other leftists for not being radical enough by his standards, and giving people a negative impression of mutualism and left-libertarianism by having a very hostile attitude. But on the other hand, there are some valid points behind his criticism, and I think that at least some left-libertarians really need to grow some balls and assert their leftism - or the accusation that the ALL is just a bunch of ancaps trying to sell themselves to the left by playing with rhetoric starts to seem quite true.

One thing that I am getting tired of is what I percieve as a heavy reluctance to meaningfully distinguish oneself from and critisize the ugliness that floats around in the ancap movement, partially due to a desire for conflict avoidance and solidarity. Yes, it is isn't fair to overgeneralize and it doesn't make sense to be foaming at the mouth all the time, but the ugliness is more prevailent than some seem to think it is. On the flip side, Franc has sort of served the function of alienating some people who could have otherwise been brought over to a more sensible position, simply due to the way in which he approaches the conflict.

Perhaps part of what needs to be clarified is that a portion of the ancaps are simply being naive, I.E. they might not intend to support ugliness, but they are implicated in it due to their associations and they do not realize what they have gotten themselves into. For example, Hoppe deserves all the criticism he gets, but part of the problem is that a lot of ancaps simply do not see the authoritarianism, so they'll engage in apologetics for him until they're blue in the face because they don't see the monstrosity in the room. I see this all the time in some of the market anarchist circles I've been associated with - people with decent intentions that simply don't see the arch-conservatism within their own movement. If they actually did see it, I think that their attitude would change fairly quickly.

[shawnpwilbur]

BP, being loud, rude and wrong is not a matter of "growing a pair" -- and, frankly, you're a complete jackass for suggesting it is.

Francois is the ugliness that is attempting to characterize our movement. Watch his stupid trolling on GOTG, and note his tendency to slander anyone who disagrees with him as an "an-cap." How many fucking times have people offered substantive alternatives to his "playing with rhetoric" -- approaches to issues like property that have the potential to bridge discourses and emphasize "left" cultural concerns? Self-proclaimed an-caps have shown themselves plenty concerned about issues like sexual harassment -- and Francois has made every attempt to deny that concern -- as if his current tissue of unchecked premises was the only way to go.

And what have you done to advance the cause, other than childishly fuck around about owning people? Francois was bragging on Flag that you were a prime mover in the anti-ancap campaign. Now, Franc's relationship with the truth is distant, but you do seem to be pretty damn selective in what ugliness you're concerned about.

Maybe your idea of advancing left-libertarianism is to take exactly the opposite course that we began on -- muddying the waters where we once clarified them, driving new sectarian wedges where we spent years building connections, etc. Maybe you really think that Kevin Carson is a sort of right-winger, or that the sort of people that Francois has been brushing aside with vague smears -- Gillis, Neverfox, myself -- are moral cowards. That's the crap you're backing when you back Francois -- that and a complete disregard for facts or logic. Do you really think "taking down" Walter Block is worth all the collateral damage within our own circles?

[Brainpolice]

BP, being loud, rude and wrong is not a matter of "growing a pair" -- and, frankly, you're a complete jackass for suggesting it is.

Good job misunderstanding my point - I wasn't holding up Franc as an example. I was speaking generally, and I even conceded that Franc's behavior is erratic and hostile. In fact, I keep telling people that Franc isn't particularly representative of mutualism and left-libertarianism. So I don't see how you could have gotten that out of my post. What I am saying is that there's an opposite extreme to Franc - like being naive about philosophical conflicts and just wanting everyone to get along so badly that one effectively eschews left-libertarianism of any positive and distinguishing content.

And what have you done to advance the cause, other than childishly fuck around about owning people? Francois was bragging on Flag that you were a prime mover in the anti-ancap campaign. Now, Franc's relationship with the truth is distant, but you do seem to be pretty damn selective in what ugliness you're concerned about.

I'm not in some sort of Tremblay cult, and I don't recall parading myself around about "owning people" - I've simply called people like Cal Miles out on misleading bullshit at fr33agents. In fact, my position has been confused with Franc's on numerous occasions, and I've perpetually told people that I don't share it. But yes - I am against ancap and I'm sick of left-libertarians pussy-footing around the issue in the name of reconciliation, as if most ancaps are left-libertarians at heart with a few bad apples. No - the movement is virtually filled with a combination of authoritarian bullshit and naive enablers of authoritarian bullshit. That's why I left it in the first place. It's leaders mostly turned out to be grumpy old conservatives, and its followers mosty turned out to be naive young people swayed by grumpy old conservatives. I think it's a bankrupt philosophy, and it doesn't make sense for left-libertarians to be completely neutral about it.

Maybe your idea of advancing left-libertarianism is to take exactly the opposite course that we began on -- muddying the waters where we once clarified them, driving new sectarian wedges where we spent years building connections, etc.

Nope, it isn't that. But it also isn't engaging in a naive attempt at reconciliation with hardcore ancaps even when there are fundamentally irreconcilable positions at stake and the "pluralism" is illusory, and essentially opening up left-libertarianism to more or less be a libertarianism-without-adjectives movement; that would kind of make the whole "left" part misleading. If left-libertarianism cannot *distinguish* itself from an open-ended framework that is all-inclusive towards nationalists and assorted arch-conservatives, then it's going to fall right back into the mish-mash of "big tent thin-ness" that Rand rightly critisized libertarianism for in the first place. I think that the pursuit of conflict resolution and inclusivity to the point of eradicating all values other than a shallow opposition to the nation-state is intellectual laziness at best and philosophical suicide at worst. And maybe it should be reflected on that at least some of these "connections" (like LVMI) are based on a bed of sand.

Maybe you really think that Kevin Carson is a sort of right-winger

Nothing close to it, and I've perpetually told people about the distinction between Carson's position and Franc's, and sided with Carson.

Do you really think "taking down" Walter Block is worth all the collateral damage within our own circles?

Again, I'm not joined with Franc in some campaign. But I'll certainly critisize Walter Block until I'm blue in the face (which I've already done anyways), because he deserves it. He is a prime example of exactly what's wrong with contemporary libertarianism.

[Darian]

I don't see any solution to questions of economic organization besides consensus: If workers are okay with their boss, even though co-operatives have flourished in the freed market then that is something to compete against. Sure, agitate for worker control, individual autonomy and all that, but to treat someone as your enemy because they have a different view of what constitutes domination (when there are viable alternatives) seems as idiotically dogmatic as anarcho-capitalists asserting that everybody will fight for "capitalism" (however it's defined today).

I think various anarchists and libertarians have a lot to learn from each other, and that the lessons arising from the dialogue will result in a more consistent and effective advocacy of liberty. But if the conversation is just about achieving victory over the inferior thinkers then it's not so helpful.

By interacting in person with social anarchists, an-caps, Campaign for Liberty folks, and newbie proto-activists attending various rallies, I feel I bring some measure of physical reality to left-libertarianism. By doing so I'm helping to bring others in a better direction of thinking as well as refining my own thinking through the interaction, which is just as important.

[Darian]

In case it wasn't clear, let me expand: discussing theory is very important. It is at least as important as concrete projects, and probably more important because activism will do harm instead of good if it doesn't have a strong (but not too rigid) ideological backbone.

But discussion is useful for the way in which it relates to the physical world. That means neither an attitude of "it's just theory - it doesn't really matter" nor an attitude of scoring points over people. It means figuring out how we can move towards liberty.

[LLL]

On this entry of mine:
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2 ... c-ravings/

Digg it:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Walte ... harassment

Spread the word around. I would welcome help about any site where I could get this on.

Franc,

Walter Block is known for his extremely value free approach to everything but the non-aggression axoim. There is no inveitable determinstic path towards this with Lockean property rights. Otherwise; there would be no absentee owners today who don't sexually molest the people on their property. The world is not entirely determined by economics/economic organization/property theory. I am not going to be part of a movement where only absolute mutualism is ok.

Are you trying to drive those who don't believe in your dogmatic mutualism out of the movement or something? "Spread the word"

Let them know the left-Rothbardians are potential dictators and intellectually bankrupt. Look what this one douchebag said!

[jeremy6d]

I see a double-edged sword in all of this. On one hand, yes - Franc comes off as overzealous, to the point of attacking other leftists for not being radical enough by his standards, and giving people a negative impression of mutualism and left-libertarianism by having a very hostile attitude. But on the other hand, there are some valid points behind his criticism, and I think that at least some left-libertarians really need to grow some balls and assert their leftism - or the accusation that the ALL is just a bunch of ancaps trying to sell themselves to the left by playing with rhetoric starts to seem quite true.

You know, this really gets to the core, BP. Because, deep down, I heartily suspect that many of us engage in these discussions primarily to "assert ourselves", not primarily to learn. I know I've done it, because I like being right - yet I learn more when I consider that I might be wrong, and when I don't throw emotional barriers in the way of communication. I have no interest in asserting my leftism except insofar as it aligns with my penultimate goal of connecting with people. We may have something to teach others, but we almost certainly have something to learn as well. And when we forget that, we come off as boorish and hurt the very conversation that is our salvation, our only (or major) source of growth and community as anarchists.

I have no problem with making distinctions between positions, but the goal should be to convince and elucidate - not to divide people up into ideological camps for its own sake.

I've said before that I consider Francois Tremblay to be among the left libertarians' seven sins and its twelve virtues. I'd simply ask Francois if he finds his tactics effective. Like, from this left libertarian's POV, somebody who is so convinced by the consistency of NAP that they accept Block's conclusions is not going to be bullied or insulted out of that belief. It takes appeals, thoughtful and respectful, to show somebody a different way of looking at the issue than they might have conceived. But if you attack people, they will defend, and they will become less receptive - and less insightful themselves.